Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
A reassessment cannot be sustained where the deduction claim was specifically examined and accepted in the original scrutiny assessment, because reopening on the same material is a mere change of opinion, even within four years. The recorded reasons also failed on merits: the proposed set-off of ineligible-unit losses before allowing the deduction was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Yokogawa India Ltd., the foreign-exchange realisation condition was not applicable for the relevant year, and the objection that the claim was not made in the designated schedule was untenable because the claim was disclosed and explained during assessment. The notice, objection order, draft assessment order and consequential proceedings were quashed.
A reassessment cannot be sustained where the deduction claim was specifically examined and accepted in the original scrutiny assessment, because reopening on the same material is a mere change of opinion, even within four years. The recorded reasons also failed on merits: the proposed set-off of ineligible-unit losses before allowing the deduction was contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Yokogawa India Ltd., the foreign-exchange realisation condition was not applicable for the relevant year, and the objection that the claim was not made in the designated schedule was untenable because the claim was disclosed and explained during assessment. The notice, objection order, draft assessment order and consequential proceedings were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
